John Adams

Oh they got 'em. The current wave of FCC control makes me physically ill.

Cue the evil empire march music. Dun dun dun dun-da-da dun-da-da... It all started with the smoking ban.

So is the "check" on this the legislature (And the people)? To the others, would you agree that the president should have more limited powers than he currently has? I would make him be the head of state (diplomacy). Give him the ability to negotiate treaties that must ultimately get approval in the legislative branch (this is touchy because it undermines the pres. authority, but tough)? And what role would the judiciary have? Similar to what it is now- enforcement of the Constitution and federal laws?

Most people liked the idea of the direct democracy, which surprised me, but I think Gavin summed it up well when he said (paraphrasing), "I know the current system is FUBAR. A new one can't help but be better." Anyway, having given the power of the legislature more directly to the people, how do we arrange other branches of government? Is an executive necessary? And if so, what powers does the executive have? And how about judiciary? Do they maintain the same check on the legislative branch that they have now? Still appointed by the president? I favor an executive who is a head of state, with limited war time/crisis powers that are as answerable to the people as the legislature is in our direct democracy system. If the pres decides to go to war and the people oppose it, tough.

Good point. For simplicity, this was focused on federal government. 10th Amendment type issues will come soon.

njsue endorses him as a "good poster" and gave a sad face at the news of his departure. I think that about sums things up.

How about a system with 4 checks on legislation. Assume we keep our three branches, but add a fourth, where the people can veto legislation. Maybe every quarter, the populace can veto legislation they disagree with. I like this, but worry that it favors the populated areas, which could veto things they don't benefit from in favor of things they do. They could veto farm susidies while refusing to veto welfare. Or veto public funding of transportation in rural areas and refuse to veto things like the big did. Or, more likely, the active rural constituencies could take over the process by doing the opposite (see the last pres. election), refusing to support legislation that gives to city centers. This checks and balance thing is critical. How can we strike the right balances?

Yeah to you and Wingnut. Was just trying to make the point that we live in a democracy generally. Our democracy is an indirect democracy, where the power of the reps are derived from the people. You better be careful with that kind of rhetoric, by the way. Bush is going to war against countries that are not democracies.

Seriously, that's a nightmare, don't you think? The dissenting voices often deserve a right to live their lives the way they see fit. There must be a check on the majority. Further, in direct democracy, who decides on things like going to war (assume a situation like Iraq, where the US was not attacked). Would you leave the power to go to war at the whim of an unchecked populace? Imagine some the rash decisions people would have made in the wake of 9-11. I prefer a representative form of government where the people have the ability to veto legislation. It's a cross between indirect and direct democracy. I am also against the parlimentary system, and like the checks and balances (three brances) set up in our current constitution. My only change to the checks and balances, assuming people think they are necessary, is that I would severely limit the power of the executive.

What kind though? I'm all for giving the people the right to veto legislation, and with instant communication, technology could make direct democracy more possible. Still, how involved do you want people in the day to day operation of the government? And what happens to minority views? The direct democracy system should be set up so as not to create a system in which the majority subjugates the minority, don't you think? How do we set up checks and balances in the DD system?

So, it seems like we're a democracy. There was never much doubt. But now comes the hard part. What kind of democracy. Here are a few of the biggest flavors. 1) Direct democracy is any form of government based in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process. (Assume provisos for what happens in times of crisis where the citizens could not vote in a timely fashion). Direct Democracy can work in several ways. First, the electorate is the source of an initiative that will be voted on. A certain number of voters would have to sign a petition to get something before the electorate. Second, the electorate could hold a referendum on all legislation, effectively giving the people the power to veto government proposals. Third, voters can, at the initiative of a petition, recall elected officials. Switzerland has a direct democracy that follows the first and second lines. 2) Indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives. A couple variant theories exist. In the first, the elected person does what he wishes once elected (like in the US). A variant called delegative democracy makes the elected officials mere pawns of the people- they do the electorate's bidding. (there are other varieties- for simple explanations, try the Wikipedia) *** Some other things to consider in this are the forms of any checks and balances, if any. Does a parliamentary system make sense? It gets things done. Or is our check and balanced system better, even though it is set up to slow the effectiveness of government?

Politics is hard not to corrupt. Since I'm playing Devil's Advocate on this, how about we identify fields of importance that need to be represented. Legal, Science, Social, Defense, Infrastructure, Medicine, Economics etc., and these are comprised of previously elected members of the merit-based Congress. For our first Congress, we would have to pick the panels, and the mix of representation in each panel, but thereafter, it would be a self-sustaining system. Prone to corruption, sure. But the balance of different committees would hopefully act as a check.

Agreed. This question seems pretty simple. Still, for the sake of discussion, how about a meritocracy/democracy where people are electable based on performance in their fields of expertise. Then the electorate nominates representatives from this base of electable folks.

Some government is necessary to protect borders if nothing else, so that we can live in anarchy.

Put your money where your collective big mouths are. We're having a Constitutional Convention in 2005. The old one is very good, but has some problems, and interpretation issues. Rather than revising it Amendment by Amendment, which will take an interminable amount of time because of all the Party infighting, a handful of US leaders have entrusted the people of PPP to form a Constitutional Convention and hammer out a new one. The first thing we need to decide is what form of government we'll be using. There are, of course, several choices. Ours is currently a Democracy (Parliament/Sep. powers will come later). Monarchy is possible, although probably out, in less we all agree that the Bush's are the first family and can breed our leaders. Theocracy is an option. Aristocracy a possibility. Meritocracy has ummm... merits, although let's set an IQ cutoff one point above Tom's. Anyway, these (and other systems) are on the table. It seems like Democracy is the way to go, but let's hash it out and see if any of the others can work. After the thread dies, we'll move to Topic II.

Read the whole excerpt. It was in the contaxt of discussing that Bledsoe was "tough as nails," which he certainly is.

Who would have thought there would competition with the Old German Woman for the post that most wasted my time this week?

Prime time speakers were Pataki, Guiliani, McCain- all contenders... Arnold (can't run) the psycho Democrat (psychotic).

I don't think the Dems will run Hillary. That would be a terrible mistake. Dean would have been a better choice, but I presume he's out since he's in charge. Maybe a dark horse moderate like Gov Rendell of PA (he's probably too willing to speak his mind to get elected)? I disagree with KRC on one point: I think the Right has all their candidates lined up; they just have to pick their man. All the primetime Convention speakers would be leading the way. And I think the US would elect a woman president, just not Hillary.

Calling KurtGodel, calling Kurt. C'mon man. Enlighten us with your wisdom regarding the races Kurt.

And he's gay. Must be a plot by the homos.

Gotta gotta get some elbow room... up on the moon?

I think the march toward trampling Constitutional rights started a long time before the smoking ban. See income tax. See state v. federal rights (ha ha- as if that's much of an issue any more). See fed. justification for spending under the commerce clause umbrella. See search and seizure vs right to privacy. See the crowd that doesn't believe in a right to privacy. Etc. Anti-smoking, and the property right it ignores, was just another step.

Thank you for summing that up; the odds of me reading that nightmare were slim.

Add me to the list. I'm not against it- just never did it. Now that I'm all grown up, there's really no need.